An Act to make provision about
terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland
about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the
preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.

Definition of terrorism

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government
[or an international governmental organisation][2] or to
intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a
political, religious [, racial][3] or
ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person
committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the
public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to
disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2)
which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism
whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

Sections (2)(b) and (e) could be criticised as falling well
outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, ie
acts that require life-threatening violence.[4]

Prior to this, terrorism was defined in an Act as a footnote,
such as Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 (c. 18) section
2(2):[5]

"acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of,
or in connection with, any organisation which carries out
activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by
force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United
Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.

In this Act "terrorism" means the use of violence for political
ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting
the public or any section of the public in fear.

In Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, the
criminal offences referred to as terrorism are provided as an
exhaustive list of over 70 items.[7]

This move to establish a sound definition of terrorism in the
law made it possible to build an entirely new set of police and
investigatory powers into incidents of this kind, beyond what they
could do for ordinary violent offences.

Proscribed
groups

As in previous Terrorism Acts, such as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)
Act 1989, the Home Secretary had the power to maintain
a list of proscribed groups that he believes are
"concerned in terrorism". The act of being a member of, or
supporting such a group, or wearing an item of clothing such as "to
arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a
proscribed organisation" is sufficient to be prosecuted for a
terrorist offence.

International groups

The secretary of state's list proscribes a number of
international organisations, the majority due to accusations
connected with Islamic fundamentalism. The list
as of February 2009 is:[8]

Notable
sections

Section 41
(detention without charge)

Section 41 of the Act provided the police with the power to
arrest and detain a person without charge for up to 48 hours if
they were suspected of being a terrorist.[9] This
period of detention could be extended to up to seven days if the
police can persuade a judge that it is necessary for further
questioning.[10]

This was a break from ordinary criminal law where suspects had
to be charged within 24 hours of detention or be released. This
period was later extended to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act
2003,[11] and
to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006.

Section 44 powers
(stop and search)

The most commonly encountered use of the Act was outlined in
Section 44 which enables the police and the Home Secretary to
define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein
they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize
"articles of a kind which could be used in connection with
terrorism".[12]
Unlike other stop and search powers that the police
can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have "reasonable
suspicion" that an offence has been committed, to search an
individual.[13]

Section 58 - Collection
of information

This section creates the offence, liable to a prison term of up
to ten years, to collect or possesses "information of a kind likely
to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
terrorism".

Sections 57-58: Possession offences: Section 57 is dealing with
possessing articles for the purpose of terrorist acts. Section 58
is dealing with collecting or holding information that is of a kind
likely to be useful to those involved in acts of terrorism. Section
57 includes a specific intention, section 58 does not.[15]

Stop and
search, arrest and conviction rates

Between July and December 2007, the BBC reported that more than
14,000 people and vehicles had been stopped and searched by British
Transport Police in Scotland.[16] In
2008 the Metropolitan Police conducted 175,000
searches using Section 44, these included over 2313 children (aged
15 or under), of whom 58 where aged under 10.[17]

Up to early 2004 around 500 people are believed to have been
arrested under the Act; seven people had been charged. By October
2005 these figures had risen to 750 arrested with 22 convictions;
the then current Home Secretary, Charles Clarke,
said "the statistics illustrate the difficulty of getting evidence
to bring prosecution".[18]

Figures released by the Home Office on 5 March 2007 show that 1,126
people were arrested under the Act between 11 September 2001 and 31
December 2006. Of the total 1,166 people arrested under the Act or
during related police investigations, 221 were charged with
terrorism offences, and 40 convicted.[19]

Reactions
and analysis

In his comprehensive commentary on this Act and other
anti-terrorism legislation, Professor Clive Walker of the
University of Leeds comments:[20]

"The Terrorism Act 2000 represents a worthwhile attempt to
fulfil the role of a modern code against terrorism, though it fails
to meet the desired standards in all respects. There are aspects
where rights are probably breached, and its mechanisms to ensure
democratic accountability and constitutionalism are even more
deficient, as discussed in the section on ‘Scrutiny’ earlier in
this chapter. It is also a sobering thought, proffered by the Home
Affairs Committee, that the result is that ‘This country has more
anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any
other developed democracy.’ (Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Bill 2001 (2001-02 HC 351) para.1). But at least that
result initially flowed from a solemnly studied and carefully
constructed legislative exercise."

Alleged
abuses

The laws have been criticised for allowing excessive police
powers leaving scope for abuse. There have been various cases in
which the laws have been used in scenarios criticised for being
unrelated to fighting terrorism. Critics allege there is systematic
abuse of the act against protesters.[21]

Many instances have been reported in the media of innocent
people who have been stopped and searched under section 44 of the
Act. According to Home
Office guidelines, police are required to have "reasonable
suspicion" that a person is acting as a terrorist.[22]
Critics of the Act claim that, in practice, police are using
Section 44 emergency powers as "an additional tool in their
day-to-day policing kit" to stop and search innocent citizens
without reasonable grounds, going beyond the original intention of
Parliament.[23][24]

One of the issues arising from the Section 44 authorisations has
been the use of the Act to detain lawful protestors or other people who are in the
vicinity of demonstrations. Critics claim the Act gives police
extended powers to deter or prevent peaceful protest.[25]

Problematic use of Section 44 powers has not been restricted to
political protestors; according to reports, journalists, amateur and professional photographers, trainspotters, politicians and children
have been subject to stop and search under suspicion of being
involved in terrorist activities while engaged in lawful acts such
as photography. The taking of photographs in public spaces is
permitted under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 (freedom of panorama), and while the
Terrorism Act does not prohibit such activity,[22]
critics have alleged misuse of the powers of the Act to prevent
lawful photography.[26]
(Further restrictions on photography have, however, been introduced
with the Counter-Terrorism Act
2008)

In December 2009, the Association of Chief
Police Officers (Acpo) issued a warning to police chiefs to
stop using Section 44 powers to target photographers, whether
tourists, amateurs or professionals, stating that the practice was
"unacceptable".[28]

Incidents

General

In October 2005 Sally Cameron was held for four hours after
being arrested under the act for walking on a cycle path in a
controlled port area in Dundee
owned by Forth
Ports. While cyclists were free to pass through the port zone,
she was arrested and detained because she was a pedestrian and
under suspicion of being a terrorist.

“

I’ve been walking to
work every morning for months and months to keep fit. One day, I
was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn’t use the route any
more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was
caught doing it again, I’d be arrested...The next thing I knew, the
harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying,
‘You’re trespassing, please turn back’. It was totally ridiculous.
I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were
also laughing...But then two police cars roared up beside me and
cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told
me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act. The harbour master
was waffling on and (saying that), because of September 11, I would
be arrested and charged.[29]

”

In July 2008 anti-terror police held a 12-year-old autistic
boy with cerebral
palsy and his parents whilst travelling on the Eurotunnel
Shuttle rail service under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act. The
child's mother was taken to an interrogation room and questioned on
suspicion of child trafficking and released
without charge. Kent
Police later apologised for the incident.[30]

Section
44

In September 2003 two people - Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton
- intending to protest against the Defence Systems Equipment
International (DSEI) show in London's Docklands, were stopped and searched
under the Act. There followed an outcry that this was a misuse of
power. The pressure group Liberty took the case to High
Court where the Judge ruled in favour of the police.[23][31]
Appeals to the Court of Appeal, and, in March 2006, to the House of
Lords, failed.

Walter
Wolfgang was removed from the 2005 Labour Party conference for heckling
Jack Straw. He was later stopped by police
under the Terrorism Act on attempting to re-enter the
conference.

Over 1000 anti-war protesters, were stopped and required to
empty their pockets, on their way to RAF Fairford (used by American B-52
bombers during the Iraq conflict).[21]

In October 2008 police stopped a 15-year-old schoolboy in south
London who was taking photographs of Wimbledon railway station for his school
geography project. He was questioned under suspicion of being a
terrorist. His parents raised concerns that his personal data could
be held on a police database
for up to six years.[32]

In November 2009, BBC
photographer Jeff Overs was searched and questioned by police
outside the Tate
Modern art gallery for photographing the sunset over St Paul's
Cathedral, under suspicion of preparing for a terrorist act.
Overs lodged a formal complaint with the Metropolitan Police.[37][38]

In December 2009, renowned architectural photographer Grant
Smith was searched by a group of City of London Police officers
under Section 44 because he was taking photographs of Christ Church Greyfriars;
although he was working on public ground, the church's proximity to
the Bank of
America City of London branch caused a bank security guard to
call the police.[39]